Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wuhwuzdat

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 20:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute
I believe that :
 * 1) is unwilling to accept constructive criticism from other editors;
 * 2) has been so abrupt in warning a new editor that wikipedia may lose potentially good contributions;
 * 3) has over-rigidly applied the spam policy concerning external links, despite clear guidance at WP:ELYES that the links meet the standard for inclusion.

Desired outcome
That :
 * 1) change his approach to constructive criticism and accept when a consensus is against him;
 * 2) strike the warning on Amanda.nelson12's talk page, and preferably apologise;
 * 3) revert his actions in removing the external links made by Amanda.nelson12.
 * 4) discuss more with other users to gain consensus, rather than closing topics or blanking them to halt discussions
 * 5) recognise that administrators are just normal users with extra buttons, thus are not the rulers of disputes

Description
''{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}''

gave a level 4 warning to to and also reverted numerous external links that Amanda.nelson12 had added to several biographies, citing 'linkspam' in the edit summary – samples:, ,.

Amanda.nelson12 is a new user, who works for the American Institute of Physics, at the Niels Bohr Library and Archive, where she has been part of a project to "digitize and put online over 500 oral history transcripts with prominent physicists and astronomers of the 20th century". Her stated purpose on wikipedia is "to spread this knowledge to the wikipedia community by posting links to these oral histories on the pages for the physicists being interviewed". 

Users attempted to discuss whether this was the correct warning to give, with suggestions that a "Only warning" was too harsh as the contributions were in good faith, Wuhwuzdat however declared that he would not consider changing this unless an administrator told him to:, and promptly closed the discussion, not talking further, telling the user to get admin status and then come back:

Unfortunately, it seems that the user in question has been put off Wikipedia, stating that they and their archive organisation are unlikely to want to contribute further:. This incident may potentially have damaged Wikipedia's image.

In the longer term, Wuhwuzdat has also acted in potentially bitey ways when patrolling new pages, and handling CSD, Prod and AfD, assuming bad faith of new contributors, and thus potentially scaring off good contributors, or new contributors who would be constructive if time were taken to help them learn policies. This goes against Wikipedia's ethos of "Anyone can edit". A previous discussion at Wikiquette Alerts was held on this: [Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive76#User:Wuhwuzdat], but stalled as Wuhwuzdat was unwilling to hold long-term discussions, calling the process a "Kangaroo Court" and a waste of time:

He is also seemingly unwilling to be informed of mis-tagging speedy deletions, specifically this incident:. He has been reminded to avoid biting newbies both in the past, as shown in the WQA thread, and recently such as here:.

Evidence of disputed behavior

 * Inappropriate warning:
 * Sample of reverts:, ,
 * Dismissal of criticism:
 * Refusal to discuss except with an administrator:
 * Previous WQA closed as stuck:

Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * WP:ELYES#3
 * WP:BITE
 * WP:CON
 * WP:SPAM
 * WP:AGF
 * WP:COI

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute
Having received the warning, Amanda.nelson12 posted for help in what to do at the Help Desk. Subsequent replies from four users showed a general agreement that the links were useful and that the warning was "bitey" – diff of last comment:.

I was concerned that Wuhwuzdat was removing useful content because of an over-narrow interpretation of the guideline WP:SPAM, and was risking the loss of a potentially valuable contributor by threatening a block. I posted to his talk page, outlining where I felt he was mistaken (per WP:ELYES#3 and WP:BITE) and requesting that, as at least two other editors had disagreed with his actions, he should strike the warning and re-instate the links he removed. .

Previous Wikiquette Alert, and a sub-discussion about general talk page conduct, was made here in November:

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute
This request was summarily and impolitely dismissed by Wuhwuzdat, since he believes that only administrators should be able to question his actions.

A previous Wikiquette Alert was closed as stuck:, advice from uninvolved users such as: seems to have not been heeded.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}


 * --RexxS (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * --Taelus (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 21:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

 * This concerns me, WuhWuDat seems to have driven away a useful collaboration. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Pdfpdf (talk) 01:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was asked to certify, but was reluctant as I am finding Wikipedia very stressful at the moment. Having slept on it I endorse the summary, and note that this kind of bitey unconstructive behaviour is driving new editors away, giving Wikipedia a bad name in academe, and adversely affecting some established editors as well. DuncanHill (talk) 10:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The oral history links from the AIP, one of the most august physics bodies in the world, are a valuable addition to the articles on physicists. They should not have been reverted. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC).
 * A clear case of over-zealous page patrolling and a failure to assume good faith. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Two very, very disturbing concerns here. One, WWD won't change his actions unless directed to by an administrator? That's plain ridiculous. He/she needs to learn to take in advice from all editors, and if he can't, the community should debate about banning him per Civility. Two, he drove away a new user by virtue of a confrontational and unnecessary warning. In this case, WWD needed to take the time to explain why he believed what Amanda was doing was wrong. Instead, he chose a needlessly discouraging warning and possibly drove away a very beneficial collaboration. Frankly, I'm embarrassed and mortified that this happened, and I hope that WWD is ashamed. Disclaimer: I removed WWW's rollback in October over a separate incident. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  23:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note that I have just removed WWD's access to Twinkle. I don't consider this a COI because I took this action while researching the allegations made in this RFC. Any admin may revert my action if they feel it is warranted and/or I had a COI. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  23:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no doubt that the user in question is well-intentioned. However, I too have had occasion to experience ill-advised and overly strident attitudes from this editor.  He would be well advised to remember the collaborative environment we are trying to foster. —  James Kalmar  18:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The actions of the ed. were extremely ill-advised, and the response to them inappropriate. This gives us a real problem: how to res-establish contact with the AIP. Have the links been restored, as a first sign of our good faith?    DGG ( talk ) 02:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Cirt (talk) 05:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * After reading the above summary frankly I am appalled at this editors attitude and unwillingness to admit they were in the wrong. -- &oelig; &trade; 15:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Response
I believe that Thefromspace has summarized this situation quite admirably below, and have nothing else to add. object STRONGLY to Juliancoltons signature appearing in the certification section above, as he had no contact with me on this particular matter.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1)  Wuh  Wuz  Dat  06:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Outside view
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

View by Themfromspace
I'm suprized to see this here, because I endorse Wuhwuzdat's actions of issuing a warning and reverting the edits, although next time a scenario like this happens I would recommend bringing the situation up for discussion first at a discussion board such as at the external links noticeboard.

I do not believe that any of the external links placed meet WP:EL, and I also believe that there is a consensus in favor of removing mass-posted links, for the very reason that they are mass-posted. When I encountered Amanda.nelson12's edits I gave her a warning that we do not encourage mass-linking, per multiple guidelines, such as WP:LINKSPAM and WP:ELNO (points 1 and 4 apply). I instructed the user to write the relevant content into the article and cite the links as references, since they pass WP:RS. I also warned that the links were likely to be removed by another editor if the spamming behaviour continued. Amanda.nelson12 did not stop the linking edits and, as predicted, another editor reverted them as being spammed.

I do not think that this RfC will accomplish much, because the actions are already in the past and (in my opinion) there isn't much to apologize for. Instead we should move forward by checking each link that was placed and examining it against WP:EL to see if it adds an encyclopedic resource to the article which cannot be conveyed through editing the article's text. Only in each individual case, after it has been determined that it is acceptable, should the link be placed back in the article it was removed from.

There is a bit of confusion over the meaning of "anyone can edit", and that is at the heart of this matter. Anyone is welcome to edit Wikipedia, but "Anyone can edit" does not give a licence to break our spam and EL guidelines, as was clearly done here, nor should infringing edits remain in our articles just because the editor who made them is new. Rather, as per WP:BITE, editors should kindly be shown what is wrong with their edits, why they were removed, and what they can do to improve them. This whole situation is indeed unfortunate and Amanda.nelson12 should be encouraged to return to editing and build up the content of the affected articles with the resource she has provided, in a manner that is consistent with our guidelines.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1)  Them  From  Space  00:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)  Wuh  Wuz  Dat  06:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Hellbus (talk) 11:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) --  RP459  Talk/Contributions 03:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) WP:CON is needed in the Project when any change is being done on a mass scale and Single Purpose Accounts and Role Account which are prohibited cannot be allowed to add hundreds of links and telling her to stop was right until WP:CON is availed on these issues.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  04:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note:Moved threaded Discussion To Talk Page.

Outside view by Dank
I'm weak on EL issues, but WuhWuzDat is one of our most reliable speedy deletion taggers. Rather than making a comment on who's right, I'd like to step in and offer my services. WuhWuzDat doesn't like hearing from people who don't know speedy issues thoroughly. That's not an ideal trait in a tagger ... but then, I don't know a single really devoted tagger who meets everyone's standards. I have asked WWD if he'd be willing to stay if I restore his Twinkle privileges and if I field the flak over his speedy tags, provided he and I can talk through the issues, and provided we can get another admin to help with the EL and vandalism reversion issues (or alternatively, if he's willing to stick to speedy tagging for a while).

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) - Dank (push to talk) 04:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Dank, it takes a bold move to step up to the plate. Thank you. Assuming that he will, indeed, listen to you, I fully endorse this proposal. —  Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  04:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) I support giving this a try. Gigs (talk) 14:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) I too support this idea, if he agrees to discuss with at least some "mentors", its a step in the right direction. --Taelus (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) If Wuhwuzdat can be helped to deal with criticism (unfounded or otherwise), then it would resolve most of my concerns with his behaviour. An offer that would help him return to his productive editing deserves support. --RexxS (talk) 19:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) The whole affair seems overly wrought with emotion (drama) and maybe an application of "everyone take a deep breath" is in order. FWiW Bzuk (talk)

Outside view by Rjanag
I have no knowledge of the specific issue being discussed above, only of Wuhwuzdat's behavior in general. My only interaction with Wuhwuzdat was here, where I found the user to be dismissive of constructive criticism and quick to point out all the reasons why he was above doing anything wrong. I do not doubt that the user is an asset to the project, but I hope during his time off he will think about being more open to friendly advice and come back the better for it.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 07:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) --Taelus (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Cirt (talk) 05:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) &oelig; &trade; 15:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by Beetstra
The background of this issue is always the same: 'spamming of good links' .. this time it is Wuhwuzdat who gets the blame as warner/reverter (but I have seen many who get this). I see a 'refusal' to discuss by Wuhwuzdat, however, I also see many, many users who dismiss the numerous (possible) concerns which are there with a 'it is a good link, who cares, this is improving the Wikipedia'. As I said earlier about that, I disagree with that: it could be used so much better


 * The user under discussion was left a:
 * welcome template (22:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC), with link to the five pillars, tutorial, etc.) after the first 42 edits.
 * and a remark (21:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)), suggesting to use the links, not just adding links (the editor is warned that the link is spam, I consider this a first warning!).
 * a next remark (08:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)) suggesting to read Conflict of interest and Advice for the cultural sector, and again, to use the information, not just link. Not too far of a second warning.
 * The user continued, minimally reacting to these concerns or suggestions
 * the 'only' warning (17:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)) ... actually, this is the third editor having concerns.
 * The first three posts after that:
 * object to warning
 * find the first warning 'bitey' (well, there were two/three posts earlier with concerns)
 * (first answer)
 * remark and links to other discussion.
 * only discuss the warning ..

Many editors now say 'these are good links', well:


 * WP:EL, the intro: 'If the website or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source for the article, and citing it.'. This is reference material, and the links were added to pages without references.
 * WP:EL, the intro: '... but it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic.', in line with WP:NOT/WP:NOT. Some of the subjects have hundreds of interviews (the Nobel prize winners in the list, e.g.), so .. allow them all?  Sure, this is only one now, but WP:SPAMHOLE is a real concern.
 * WP:COI, at WP:COI: '3. Linking to the Wikipedia article, your own user subspace or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam)'. Note, again, the wording says 'organisation', NOT company.  Yes, all organisations need money.  Avoid the impropriety, discuss, disclose, and if you want to help, help (and not, as they state it: 'I do not have the time nor responsibility to read through and summarize them all and do the same with the wikipedia articles to see what information is missing' (diff) only link and go).
 * The links are good, useful as references. So editors argue, if they are in the external links section, then others can find them and expand the documents.  First, we have talkpages for such suggestions, secondly, although it happens, there are numerous examples where that never happens, the links stay there, and when a linkfarm forms, they are just deleted again and the 'best' stay.

.. and I could go on with other policies and guidelines (and give other problems that are often encountered but which I have not detected here).

If adding the links is the only thing an editor is here to do .. then they is wasting their own time. OK, they don't know, but offer her help to do it with a bot, and preferably templated. Was that help offered?

So did Wuhwuzdat drive away a valuable editor .. as far as I see it:
 * The editor suggests that they were only going to link the 500+ interviews, and then go
 * Probably, the interviews they have, which don't have a corresponding Wikipedia article .. are lost .. they can't be linked, though I would have been interested in them, as a reader! Give a list of them to a suitable WikiProject ..
 * Some documents could be expanded, some documents could be referenced, but that was not the editors 'responsibility'
 * The editor largely ignored the remarks and concerns by Themfromspace and Katr, only starting to use edit summaries and creating a userpage. Help was offered already, but after the final warning, only editors came in who tell that Wuhwuzdat is wrong in warning, not offering help or resolve the situation, not asking for the list, anything?

No, the whole sessions started to bash Wuhwuzdat, telling the editor to go on with what they were doing, that the warning was wrong, etc. etc. The first three editors (see revid) did mainly that .. a total waste of valuable material.

Having said this, I would probably not have reverted, but I would have tried to 'push' the editor to stop, discuss, and hopefully adapt their edits (as I said, the link is not spam, but because of the concerns regarding WP:NOT/WP:EL/WP:SPAM/WP:COI/&c., this editor was, in Wikipedia terms, spamming). I do have concerns, and I have seen many others where there are the same, or even more concerns, and it is not necessary .. our policies and guidelines have a wide consensus, they are a 'generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow'. There are, of course, exceptions, but why make an exception for this user, because that means we also need to make exceptions for all the other not-for-profit organisations who have interview material on these users (and as the list contains Nobel prize winners, I expect there to be numerous ones; we are not a linkfarm, nor an internet directory). And the for-profit organisations are to follow, and who cares, because the information linked to is good.

Again, it could have been so much better .. if all those editors who popped in so quickly after the warning/reverts would have actually popped in earlier and did something with the information and tried to discuss with the editor as well. They even asked for that help.

Note: I just noticed that Wuhwuzdat posted a 'retired' notice (mainly) because of this Request for comment ... it could have been so much better.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1)  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Quantpole (talk) 11:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) This digs into the relevant policies and the reasons we have the policies. I endorse just about every point made.  Them  From  Space  19:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) The Editor Amanda Nelson is the Digital Project Assistant and is Single Purpose Account who has come just to add her Library's new digital work as external link in over 500 articles and leave the project.The community is heavily divided on Single Purpose Account even a possible | Role Account more meant for editing for a specific organisation further not sure whether other staff will also use the account which is prohibited in Wikipedia with a clear Conflict of Interest Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) I recognize the concerns, but this hit the nail on the head.  Swarm  Talk 11:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: threaded discussion moved to talk page

Outside view by
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.